Temporary injunctions with finality necessitate police protection to prevent unlawful dispossession, emphasizing the trial court's inherent powers to ensure justice.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the order dated 11-08-2022 on ia passed by the additional civil judge, raibag in o.s.no.314/19 produced at annexure-g, in the interest of justice and equity.

b) Grant such other relief as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Sri P.P.Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the children of original plaintiff who filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. In the said suit, the application filed by the petitioners for temporary injunction was considered after hearing the defendants and temporary injunction was granted on 05.01.2021. It is further submitted that the defendants assailed the order of temporary injunction before the Appellate Court in M.A.No.1/2021 and M.A.No.2/2021 and the Appellate Court dismissed the appeals. It is also contended that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants highhandedly tried to dispossess the petitioners from the enjoyment of the suit schedule property with the help of goondas and immediately the petitioners approached the jurisdictional police requesting them to provide police protection as per the temporary injunction order of the trial Court. However, the jurisdictional police refused to entertain the request on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature. It is also contended that the petitioners have no other option to file an application before the same Court seeking police protection to safeguard their possession. Howe’ver, the trial Court under the impugned order recorded an incorrect finding that the defendants have produced sugar supply bills which are in the name of the defendants. Hence, they are in possession of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that once the same Court after examining the material placed before it, recorded clear finding with regard to the title and possession of the plaintiff cannot record a finding that the possession of the plaintiffs is doubtful based on only sugarcane supply slips produced by the defendants. It is further submitted that if the police protection is not provided, the defendants with the help of their supporters will dispossess the petitioners and regularly obstruct the plaintiffs from enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sri Balakrishna K.P. and another v. Sri K.P. Puttaraju and others , W.P. No. 51712/2019 (GM-CPC) disposed off on 07.07.2025 and seeks to allow the application of police protection.

3. Per contra, Sri. Santosh Birangi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Abhishek Barigidad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 support the impugned order of the trial Court and submit that the trial Court while considering the application for temporary injunction has not stated with regard to the possession and the defendants have placed sufficient material before the trial Court while considering the application for police protection and shown that the defendants are in possession as they have supplied sugarcane as is evident from the bills produced before the Court. Hence, they seek to sustain the impugned order of the trial Court.

4. I have heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsels appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and meticulously perused the material on record.

5. The material on record indicates that the pe